GUADRON VS. HAYDEN

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the child support order for an abuse of discretion, citing Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996), and Flynn v. Flynn, 120 Nev. 436, 440, 92 P.3d 1224, 1227 (2004). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence, per Miller v. Miller, 134 Nev. 120, 125, 412 P.3d 1081, 1085 (2018), which quotes Flynn's standard that the court "will uphold the district court's determination if it is supported by substantial evidence." The court further noted, quoting Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 450, 352 P.3d 1139, 1142-43 (2015), that while discretionary determinations are reviewed deferentially, "deference is not owed to legal error, or to findings so conclusory they may mask legal error." On the reimbursement and set-aside issue, the court affirmed. Under NRS 125B.140(1)(a), court-ordered child support is "a judgment by operation of law on or after the date a payment is due," and such a judgment "may not be retroactively modified or adjusted and may be enforced in the same manner as other judgments of this State." Under NRS 125B.100, a parent who is delinquent at the time of emancipation "shall continue to make the payments for the support as previously ordered until the arrearages are paid." The court relied on Day v. Day, 82 Nev. 317, 320-21, 417 P.2d 914, 916 (1966), for the proposition that "[p]ayments once accrued for . . . support of children become vested rights and cannot thereafter be modified or voided." The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining reimbursement or set-aside, even though Hayden failed to respond to these arguments. On the statutory-interest-waiver issue, the court applied NRS 125B.140(2)(c), which permits a district court to waive statutory interest on child support arrears if "the responsible parent would experience an undue hardship if required to pay such amounts." The court reviews an award of interest under NRS 125B.140(2) for an abuse of discretion, citing Northrop v. State, Div. of Welfare & Supportive Services, No. 64589, 2016 WL 3033750 (Nev. May 26, 2016) (Order of Reversal and Remand), which cites M.C. Multi-Family Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assocs., Ltd., 124 Nev. 901, 916, 193 P.3d 536, 546 (2008). Because Hayden failed to file an answering brief, the court elected to treat that failure as a confession of error under NRAP 31(d)(2), and cited Ozawa v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 125 Nev. 556, 568, 216 P.3d 788, 793 (2009), for treating a party's failure to respond to an argument as a concession that the argument is meritorious. The court reversed the portion of the order declining to waive statutory interest and remanded. On remand, it directed the district court to calculate the remaining arrears and interest accrued after the December 4, 2013 judgment, and to reconsider whether Guadron would experience undue hardship if required to pay interest. In a footnote, the court explained that because NRS 125B.140(2) "does not apply to the enforcement of a judgment for arrearages if the amount of the judgment has been determined by any court," the district court may only consider waiver of interest on the arrearages not reduced to judgment by the December 4, 2013 order.

In plain language

Carlos Guadron and Samantha Hayden share a daughter, Delilah, born in 2002. In 2006, a court ordered Guadron to pay child support to Hayden. Hayden and Delilah later moved to Minnesota, and Guadron says he had limited contact with Delilah until 2020. Over the years, the court adjusted the support order several times. In a December 4, 2013 order, the court set Guadron's monthly obligation at $110 (which included $10 toward past-due amounts) and converted about $14,475.28 in overdue support ("arrears") into a formal judgment. In 2020, Guadron went back to court. He asked to be paid back for support he had already paid, to cancel his arrears, or - if the court would not do those things - to waive the statutory interest that had built up on the arrears because he was facing financial hardship. He explained that he had recently reconnected with Delilah and learned she had not been living with her mother, that she was then 17 and living on her own with a child of her own. On the hardship point, he said he was unemployed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and was the primary physical custodian of his other minor daughter. He submitted financial documents showing $3,935 in monthly expenses against only $1,876 in monthly income from unemployment benefits. The district court found that because Delilah had turned 18, Guadron's ongoing support obligation had ended. The court did not calculate exactly how much he still owed, but directed him to keep paying $110 a month toward the arrears. It denied his motion with little explanation, saying only that the "[c]ourt found no hardship." On appeal, the Court of Appeals split its decision in two parts. First, it upheld the refusal to reimburse Guadron or erase his arrears. Under Nevada law, once child support payments come due they become a judgment automatically and cannot be undone or reduced after the fact. So Guadron could not get back money he already paid or wipe out arrears that had already accumulated. Second, on the request to waive the interest on the arrears, the court noted that Hayden never filed a response despite being ordered to do so and being warned of the consequences. The court chose to treat her silence as a "confession of error" - meaning it accepted, for purposes of this issue, that Guadron's argument had merit. It therefore reversed the part of the order refusing to waive interest and sent the case back to the district court. On remand, the district court must calculate the remaining arrears and interest that accrued after the December 4, 2013 judgment, and reconsider whether paying interest would create an undue hardship for Guadron. Importantly, the court noted the interest-waiver provision does not apply to amounts already reduced to judgment in the 2013 order - so only interest on arrears not covered by that judgment can be considered for waiver.